Latest EO: Only the President can speak "for what the law is"

And bibles.

 

^ He'll get top-bracket and corporate tax cuts. And he'll steal a lot. So there's that.

Oh, and he'll let aggrieved culture warriors and racists feel like they've won something. For a few years, at least.

Remember: we've all seen this movie before.

 

I think you need to read the article. Agree with it or not, the EO is directed at rolling back the authority of federal agencies to interpret the law, not the judicial branch.

 

He needs no tax on tips and no tax on SS. If he get those, I think the Pubs retain the House. You get no tax on tips, but everything costs more because of tariffs. Voters can’t tie the two together because the Dems don’t have a calculator on every website for kitchen table talk to make sense to the middle class.

 

Looks like yet another joke thread from the libbies.
Better hope “you know who” doesn’t catch wind of these libbie wasteful threads…

 

This has been an efficient use of resources. Congress, rather than building an entire army of experts to help them write a clear law, dropped interpretive guidance under the Executive Branch. People that want Congress to do a better job of writing the law and eliminating regulation miss the point — the administrative apparatus under Congress would be higher. Here is the key: Congress should have a LLM and AI to assist and identify inconsistencies in their law and draft tighter legislation. There is an incredible opportunity to kick out K-Street writers who hand the language to Congressional aids via AI and clean bills.

 

The courts are still going to have to weight in on if the "Unitary Executive Theory" is real whenever something is challenged. Legal theories kinda have to be. Perhaps the courts will willingly hand the executive even more power than they already have.

 

Fair enough. I have not read the EO, but these laws are purposely written with some ambiguity because law makers don't have the required knowledge and understanding to properly enforce them. I don't believe the executive branch does either.

 

If the executive has the exclusive right to determine what is legal and what is not, then what do we need the judiciary for? There were three co equal branches of government for a reason. It seems some have either forgotten that or don't feel that is necessary any more.

 

Again, never mind what the thread title implies, according to the linked article, this EO is strictly about limiting the interpretive authority of regulatory agencies, not the judicial branch. It’s a separate argument.

 

Technically the agencies are in the executive branch and the President is in charge of them already. I agree with your point though, especially as it pertains to this President. The people with the expertise to draft the rules and regulations are the specialists in the agency, not our elected officials in most cases. If the President colors outside the lines in dictating what the agencies am an and can’t do, theoretically the courts will step in the same as if the agency had done it of its own discretion. With Trump’s packed courts there’s unfortunately no guarantees with that.

 

Yes, ha. I knew I'd get nit picked for that, but didn't have the time to clarify.

The EO wasn't created to keep the status quo, it was to put the control of regulatory nuance directly into the hands of the pres, and more directly, his oligarchs.

 

It seems the EO is directed more at "congress specifically outlined X in what they drafted, but I am the authority on that actually." No need for an EO to state the existing status quo? Either that or its a shot at the courts saying "actually Chevron is good now."

 

Exactly. It’s a separate argument than one asserting Presidential authority over the judiciary. That is my point.

 

That’s like saying it’s Ukraine’s fault for Russia invading it.

 

Uh I do believe the DOGE plan is to cut all entitlements including social security so how do you tax what doesn’t exist? Further, I don’t know anyone who claims tips on on their tax returns. That’s a slogan for a bumper sticker, not policy that helps Americans.

 

This is the different argument that executive branch agencies don’t have the authority to determine what the law is for purposes of setting regulatory policy independent of the President. It actually probably has a decent bit of support under the Article II vesting clause and the Take Care clause (in essence the argument that the constitution vests the executive authority of the United States solely in a president, so there is not constitutional authority for appointees to exercise executive authority independent of the president).

Trump did himself no favors by making his language unnecessarily bombastic, and the press made it worse by blowing it out to even more dramatic and misleading phrasing, but this is largely the same unitary executive theory argument every Republican president from Reagan on has made.

 

Link? First I heard DOGE can cut SS.